Priya Soparkar 1 13 aba 1075-22-cr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1075 OF 2022

Sagar Rajendra Kathoute

… Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

… Respondent

---

Mr.Rahul Kate alongwith Mr.Suraj Naik i/by Mr.Raju Digamber

Suryawanshi, Advocates for the Applicant.

Mr.A.A.Palkar, APP for the Respondent.

---

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.

DATE : 20^th APRIL, 2022.

P.C.:-

1.

In anticipation of arrest, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest

protection in Crime No.81 of 2021 registered at Rajapur Police

Station, transferred to Kankavali Police station vide C.R.No.72 of

2022 for the o昀昀ence punishable under Sections 376, 376 (2)(n), 417

of Indian Penal Code.

2.

At the instance of report lodged by informant-lady aged about

26 years, the crime was registered. The informant got married with

somebody in the year 2016 and after matrimonial breakdown she

昀椀led petition for divorce, which is pending. It is her case that

somewhere in the year 2018 she got acquainted with applicant

through facebook. Their casual acquiescence has turned into love

relationship. On 7^th February, 2021 the applicant called victim to

Kankavali to meet him. Accordingly, victim lady went from Nagpur

to Kankavali where they had physical relations. Thereafter both of

them stayed in the State of Goa for 3 days and then again stayed for

two months at Kankavali. Then both of them went to village Vatul,

PRIYA

RAJESH

SOPARKAR

Digitally signed by

PRIYA RAJESH

SOPARKAR

Date: 2022.04.26

14:58:12 +0530

Priya Soparkar 2 13 aba 1075-22-cr

applicant’s place of working where again stayed for one month. The

informant stated that all the time applicant maintained sexual

relations by assuring her for marriage. However, later on he has

refused to marry. The informant learnt that applicant is about to

marry with someone else and as he did not perform the promise,

report has been lodged.

3.

The state resisted bail by advancing submission and producing

investigation papers. The statement recorded during course of

investigation would only suggest that both of them lived together

for long period. It is not the case that the sexual relations were

under force or compulsion. Since inception a grown-up lady who was

waiting for her divorce decree had maintained relationship with

applicant. The entire episode discloses that for months together the

victim lady was staying with the applicant. It is worthwhile to note

that Supreme court in reported case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar

Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.¹ observed that there is marked

distinction between false promise and breach of promise. Therefore, it

is necessary to establish that consent was obtained by deceitful

manner.

4.

Having regard to the entire episode it reveals that it is a case

of consensual relationship. It is a matter of trial to establish that

whether since inception the applicant with deceitful intention has

obtained consent for sexual favours. Considering the nature of

accusation nothing is to be seized at the instance of applicant.

Medical examination of applicant can be done by putting such

condition. The investigation is practically complete. In view of above,

the applicant’s liberty can be protected by directing him to join the

course of investigation, hence order.

(a)

The application stands allowed.

1

(2019)9 Supreme Court Cases 608

Priya Soparkar 3